Self-Study Design - Howard University, Graduate School

Howard University: A Research
University for the New Millennium:
New Imperatives, New Challenges,
and New Opportunities
Self-Study Design for the
Reaffirmation of Accreditation by
the Middle States Association of
Colleges and Schools
May 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Institutional Overview.................................................................................................................. 1
Description.................................................................................................................................. 1
Mission........................................................................................................................................ 6
Important Recent Developments................................................................................................. 6
The Campaign for Howard ..................................................................................................... 6
New Technology Resources and Facilities............................................................................. 7
Center for Excellence in Teaching, Learning, and Assessment (CETLA) ............................. 8
National Center for Atmospheric Sciences (NCAS) .............................................................. 8
General Clinical Research Center (GCRC) ............................................................................ 8
The Charles B. Rangel International Affairs Graduate Fellowship Program ......................... 8
Institutional Aspirations............................................................................................................... 9
The Self-Study Scope of Work and Context............................................................................. 10
Steps Taken To Prepare for the Self-Study............................................................................... 11
Appointments of Senior Level Leadership ........................................................................... 11
Board of Trustee Engagement .............................................................................................. 12
Steering and Executive Committees Established.................................................................. 12
Work Groups Appointed....................................................................................................... 13
University Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation............................................. 13
Links to University Initiatives .............................................................................................. 14
Self-Study Goals and Objectives................................................................................................ 14
Self-Study Office Staff ................................................................................................................ 15
Work Groups: Scope and Major Research Questions ............................................................ 15
Standard 1: Mission and Goals ............................................................................................. 15
Standard 2: Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal ............................... 16
ii

Standard 3: Institutional Resources ...................................................................................... 16
Standard 4: Leadership and Governance .............................................................................. 17
Standard 5: Administration................................................................................................... 19
Standard 6: Integrity ............................................................................................................. 19
Standard 7: Institutional Assessment.................................................................................... 21
Standard 8: Student Admissions and Retention.................................................................... 21
Standard 9: Student Support Services................................................................................... 22
Standard 10: Faculty ............................................................................................................. 23
Standard 11: Educational Offerings...................................................................................... 24
Standard 12: General Education ........................................................................................... 24
Standard 13: Related Educational Activities ........................................................................ 25
Standard 14: Assessment of Student Learning ..................................................................... 26
Special Emphasis: Research ................................................................................................. 27
Plans for the Collection, Analysis, and Infusion of Assessment Data into the Self-Study
Exercise ........................................................................................................................................ 29
Communications with Work Group and University Community.......................................... 29
Organization of Final Self-Study Report.................................................................................. 29
Appendix A: Membership of Executive Committee, Steering Committee, Work Groups,
and Professional Staff............................................................................................................... A-1
Appendix B: Self-Study Timetable.......................................................................................... B-1
Appendix C: Preliminary Data Available for Work Groups................................................ C-1
iii

HOWARD UNIVERSITY: A RESEARCH UNIVERSITY FOR THE NEW MILLENNIUM:
NEW IMPERATIVES, NEW CHALLENGES, AND NEW OPPORTUNITIES
SELF-STUDY DESIGN REPORT
Institutional Overview
Description
Howard University is one of the nation’s leading research universities dedicated to educating
exceptionally accomplished students, with a particular focus on African American students and
students from all racial and ethnic groups from around the world. Howard’s current student body
includes students from every state (except South Dakota), the District of Columbia, and 102
countries. Its total operating budget is approximately $750 million, and its current endowment is
$482 million. In addition, the University recently completed a capital campaign raising more
than $250 million in cash and commitments.
Howard is one of 278 research universities nationwide, among the nation’s more than 4,500
universities. Among this group, it is the largest, with a predominantly African-American student
body offering a full array of graduate and professional degree programs, including, but not
limited to, Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), Doctor of Jurisprudence (J.D.), Doctor of Medicine
(M.D.), Doctor of Dental Surgery (D.D.S.), Doctor of Pharmacy, Master of Business
Administration (M.B.A.), and Master of Social Work (M.S.W.). Howard grants undergraduate
degrees in 80 disciplines, master’s degrees in 75 majors, and doctoral degrees in 31 areas, as well
as professional certification in five areas. During the 2006–2007 academic year, the University
granted 2,358 graduate and undergraduate degrees. Since its founding in 1867 by Major General
Oliver Otis Howard, a Civil War hero and Commissioner of the Freedmen’s Bureau, Howard has
awarded more than 100,000 diplomas in the professions, the arts, the sciences, and the
humanities.
Howard’s graduates are racially and ethnically diverse. Howard produces a high percentage of
the nation’s African-American professionals in medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, engineering,
nursing, architecture, divinity, law, music, social work, and education and a significant number
of terminal-degree recipients in a broad range of disciplines. Howard also graduates the largest
number of on-campus African American Ph.D.s., many of whom currently populate the nation’s
professorate. It has produced Rhodes Scholars, two in the last decade; Fulbright, Marshall, and
Presidential Scholars. It is a leader in enrolling National Achievement Scholars (outstanding and
scholastically talented African-American high school students). During the last 5 years, the
University has enrolled more National Achievement Scholars than any other historically black
college or university (HBCU), and more than any other national university in 2003.
A full- and part-time faculty of 1,641 and a staff of approximately 2,000 serve about 11,000
undergraduate, graduate, and professional students at the University. Howard’s faculty is a
collection of distinguished racially, ethnically, and gender diverse scholars from around the
world. Among the University’s faculty, 84 percent have earned doctorate degrees (including the
J.D., M.D., and D.D.S. degrees). Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4 present a snapshot of Howard’s faculty
1

ased on rank, gender, ethnicity, and their distribution among the University’s schools and
colleges.
As shown in Figure 1, 58 percent of Howard University faculty is male and 42 percent female.
As seen in Figure 4, the College of Medicine has the highest number of faculty and the College
of Arts and Sciences has the second highest number.
Howard University Faculty (FT & PT) by Gender, Fall 2007
686, (42%)
955, (58%)
Male
Female
TOTAL=1,641
Figure 1, Howard University Faculty by Gender, Fall 2007
2

Figure 2 depicts greater gender equity in the junior academic ranks--although not as robust as
desired--suggesting that as female junior faculty are retained and achieve higher ranks over time
the gender gap would diminish. As shown in Figure 3, the Howard University faculty, while
predominantly African American (69 percent), is nonetheless exceedingly rich in its diversity
with 19 percent being White and 9 percent being Asian/Pacific Islander. This level of faculty
diversity contributes to an environment in which Howard students are exposed to differing
perspectives in the acquisition of an education.
Howard University Faculty (FT & PT) by Rank and Gender, Fall 2007
500
400
218
300
200
100
0
86
254
Professor
150
204
Associate
Professor
281
Assistant
Professor
100
106
113 18
60
38 8
5
Instructor Lecturer Adjunct Other
Female
Male
Figure 2, Faculty Distribution by Rank and Gender
3

Howard University Faculty (FT & PT) by
Ethnicity, Fall 2007
13, 1%
309, 19%
3, 0%
1, 0%
25, 2%
154, 9%
Black Non-Hispanic
Asian or Pacific Islander
Hispanic
White Non-Hispanic
American Indian
Non-Resident Alien
Not Ascertained
1136, 69%
TOTAL=1,641
Figure 3, Faculty Distribution by Ethnicity
Howard University Faculty (FT & PT) by School, Fall 2007
500
473
481
400
300
295
200
100
75
119
85 84
33
63
53
131
44
0
Arts & Sciences
Business
Communications
Dentistry
Divinity
Education
Engineering
Graduate
School
All Graduate Faculty in the Graduate School hold appointments in their home schools and colleges.
Thus, Graduate School faculty numbers are not reflected in total faculty numbers.
Law
Medicine
Pharmacy,
Nursing, and
Allied Health
Social Work
Figure 4, Faculty Distribution by School or College
4

Howard University is fully accredited by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education.
All of its specialized academic programs and professional schools are accredited by their
relevant accrediting agencies.
Howard University has an impressive number of distinguished alumni, including Nobel
Laureates, Pulitzer Prize winners, U.S. governors, mayors of large U.S. cities, an international
opera star, a former U.S. Supreme Court Justice, presidents of numerous disciplinary societies,
foreign heads of state, members of Congress, state and local elected officials, and many
distinguished academicians and researchers throughout the nation and the world.
Howard’s unique mission is focused on academic excellence and preparing its students for
leadership roles in the national and global community as highly qualified, socially aware, and
moral individuals. As a comprehensive, research university with a diverse undergraduate,
graduate and professional student body and faculty, Howard contributes to the development of
new knowledge and information that seeks to solve social and economic problems in the
domestic and international arena. Its students and faculty are involved in research dealing with
such topics as the treatment of cancer and HIV/AIDS, the genomic identification and tracking of
racial disparities in various diseases, free press journalism programs in former Soviet bloc
countries, the recording and tracking of global environmental change, business and community
development in minority communities, urban education reforms, and the resolution of major
social issues associated with African Americans and other people of color. Howard has also
formed many educational partnerships with universities in Europe, Asia, Africa, and South
America. Its students are groomed to be respected 21st-century leaders in national and global
communities who will use their Howard education to contribute to solutions for pressing societal
problems, to seek solutions for global climate change and its effect on worldwide hunger, to seek
social and economic justice on both global and national levels, and to bolster and advance
democracy and human liberty at home and abroad.
Howard’s main campus consists of more than 57 buildings on 89 acres, including the 500
licensed bed Howard University Hospital. Since 1974, the University has expanded to include a
22-acre West Campus, on which the School of Law is located; a 22-acre School of Divinity
campus; a Silver Spring, Maryland location, which houses the Continuing Education Program;
and a 108-acre Beltsville, Maryland research campus.
The Howard University library system contains more than two million volumes and is a member
of the Association of Research Libraries, the largest and most prestigious library association with
123 members in the United States and Canada. Among the system’s many resources is the
Moorland-Spingarn Research Center, which has one of the world’s largest and most
comprehensive research collections dedicated to documenting the history and culture of people
of African descent in the Americas, and other parts of the world.
In addition to its academic degree programs, the University has an array of media outlets that
address the educational and informational needs of the academic and wider community. Its radio
station, WHUR-FM, and television station, WHUT-TV, Channel 32, serve the Washington
metropolitan area and serve as training laboratories for students.
5

Howard University men and woman compete in a total of 19 varsity sports, including basketball,
football, lacrosse, soccer, volleyball, softball, swimming and diving, tennis, and indoor and
outdoor track. Student life at Howard is further enriched by an array of intramural athletic
activities, student organizations, clubs, and other extra-curricular activities.
Mission
The University’s Mission statement, as approved by the Board of Trustees in 2007, is as follows:
Howard University is a comprehensive, research-oriented, historically Black, private
university providing an educational experience of exceptional quality to students of high
academic potential with particular emphasis upon the provision of educational
opportunities to promising Black students. Further, the University is dedicated to
attracting and sustaining a cadre of faculty who are, through their teaching and
research, committed to the development of distinguished and compassionate graduates
and to the quest for solutions to human and social problems in the United States and
throughout the world.
The Mission statement is under review during the Self-Study exercise and may be refined once a
new president takes the helm after July 2008. However, the mission statement’s central
components are not expected to change significantly. Moreover, the University’s core values of
dedication to the search for truth, and commitment to excellence in teaching and research, and
service to the national African-American community and our nation, and engagement in the
global community, are expected to be reaffirmed in the refined mission statement.
Important Recent Developments
Since Howard University’s last self-assessment study in 1999, the University has experienced
several important developments. For example, it exceeded its Capital Campaign goal, built two
state-of-the-art library facilities, enhanced technological services to the university community,
and provided financial support for students interested in international affairs. To broaden its
research mission, Howard opened a new building (Howard University Research Building I)
dedicated solely to research, and established several new research centers, including the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)-funded National Center for Atmospheric
Sciences (NCAS), dedicated to studying and predicating global conditions, and the National
Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded General Clinical Research Center (GCRC). To enhance
teaching and learning, the University established a center for teaching, learning, and assessment
in 2003.
The Campaign for Howard
Beginning in 2002, Howard University embarked upon an ambitious, 5-year Capital Campaign
to raise $250 million. The Campaign reached out in an unprecedented manner to alumni, friends,
and corporate and foundation partners to provide resources needed to strengthen the Howard
faculty and students for the global advances of the 21st century and to support endowed chairs,
endowed scholarships, and information technology throughout the University. These priorities
support the scholarly preeminence of Howard University, offer educational opportunities and
attractive incentives to all students, and bring the latest technological tools to its classrooms,
6

libraries, and dormitories. In March 2007, during the University’s 140th anniversary celebration,
President H. Patrick Swygert announced that the campaign was successful and had exceeded its
$250 million goal.
New Technology Resources and Facilities
During the past decade, Howard University has spent millions of dollars to expand its
technological capabilities. New research facilities and two state-of-the art digital libraries have
been constructed and improved and access to digital resources has been provided to all segments
of the academic community.
One of the many initiatives the University has implemented to expand its research activities was
the development of the Howard University Research Building I (HURB I), a 50,000 square-feet
facility. It is a prototype research facility that accommodates the activities of major externallyfunded
research projects, which are directed at the development of solutions to enduring
problems, especially those that disproportionately affect people of color. HURB I houses a
significant community of research staff, faculty, and students. It provides an interdisciplinary
environment for researchers in the social sciences, education, the biological/biomedical sciences,
and other related disciplines.
In 2001, the University opened two new 80,000 square-foot digital libraries, the Louis Stokes
Health Sciences Library on the Main Campus and the School of Law Library on the West
Campus. The Louis Stokes Health Sciences Library is a research facility outfitted with modern
telecommunication and audiovisual capabilities. The building accommodates 630 individuals,
with all seats wired for power and data. In addition, there are a number of flexible presentation
rooms, distance-learning labs, a telemedicine room, and an exhibit gallery. The Law Library is a
state-of-the-art facility supporting legal research and instruction. It houses a book collection of
more than 250,000 volumes; seating for nearly 300 students, including 90 open carrels wired for
computer use; microform and audiovisual facilities; and rooms designated for special collections,
newspaper and periodical reading, and the Rare Book Collection.
Howard provides its academic community access to the latest technology to ensure that students,
faculty, and staff have the most current information resources in a variety of media to support
their scholarly, instructional, research, and administrative activities. The University’s technology
infrastructure includes technology-rich Smart Classrooms and the Student Residential Network
(ResNet). With ResNet, the University operates computer laboratories located in each of the
eleven residence halls. These facilities allow students to access the computer resources of the
University and the Internet without having to leave their residence halls. In addition, ResNet2
provides wired network access, cable television, and new telephone services in every dormitory
room.
Similarly, the University has implemented an extensive computer capability for its faculty
through FacNet. FacNet provides Howard faculty with an array of technology solutions for
teaching and research in addition to the standard software packages expected of a research
university.
7

Center for Excellence in Teaching, Learning, and Assessment (CETLA)
To enhance a culture of teaching and learning and to improve faculty development, Howard
created the Center for Excellence in Teaching, Learning, and Assessment (CETLA) dedicated to
fulfilling the University’s Mission with respect to faculty roles and responsibilities. CETLA
strives to build a community of faculty who are committed to scholarly teaching that is grounded
in theory and research. Through faculty training, instructional technology, interdisciplinary
collaboration, classroom assessment, and discussions of educational research, CETLA strives to
ensure that all students gain an educational experience of exceptional quality.
National Center for Atmospheric Sciences (NCAS)
In 2001, NOAA provided funding to Howard University to establish NCAS to conduct research
on critical issues related to the atmosphere and climate conditions in the United States and
globally. The U.S. Department of Commerce awarded a combined grant of $15 million to
Howard University, and four other minority-serving institutions (MSIs) to establish the Center.
In 2006, the U.S. Department of Commerce awarded Howard University an additional $12.5
million to continue its research and training efforts.
General Clinical Research Center (GCRC)
Through the GCRC program, the NIH’s National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) funds
a national network of approximately 78 centers that provide settings for medical investigators to
conduct safe, controlled, state-of-the-art, inpatient and outpatient studies of both children and
adults. The GCRC at Howard University is located in the 4-West wing of the Howard University
Hospital center. The GCRC’s resources include specialized research nurses, research dieticians,
biostatisticians, computer hardware and software systems for data management and analysis, and
sophisticated laboratories vital for both inpatient and outpatient research. In addition, Howard’s
GCRC has a strong record of recruiting African-American participants into clinical studies on
cardiovascular disease, lipid metabolism, hypertension, and mental health issues, among others.
GCRC also provides infrastructure and resources that support several career development
opportunities.
The Charles B. Rangel International Affairs Graduate Fellowship Program
Funded by the U.S. Department of State and managed by the Ralph J. Bunche International
Affairs Center at Howard University, the Charles B. Rangel International Affairs Graduate
Fellowship was established in 2002 to prepare students for careers in public service as Foreign
Service officers. The Rangel Fellows receive an annual tuition stipend, room, board, and other
related expenses for a 2-year master’s degree in international affairs or related topics. They also
participate in a Summer Enrichment Program and participate in internships at U.S. Embassies
overseas and on Capitol Hill. At the conclusion of 2 years of study, the Rangel Program expects
the fellows to obtain a degree in international affairs or another area of relevance to the work of
the Foreign Service, such as public administration, public policy, business administration,
foreign languages, economics, political science, and communications. Each fellow is committed
to a minimum of 3 years of service in an appointment as a Foreign Service Officer. The Rangel
Program encourages the involvement of members of minority groups and those with financial
8

need. In this manner, it advances the goal of Congressman Rangel to create an excellent and
diverse U.S. Foreign Service that represents the rich range of talents and expertise of the
American people. The Rangel program selected its first fellows in 2003, and there are currently
41 Rangel Fellows, 21 of whom are in the Foreign Service. Beginning in 2008, the Rangel
Program will increase the number of fellows per year from 10 to 20.
Institutional Aspirations
In 1987, Howard University was classified for the first time as a Research I university by the
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. This historic moment meant that with its
more than 50 Ph.D. graduates per year in more than 15 disciplines, and its greater than $40
million in annual federal research grants, Howard ranked among the top 88 research universities
in the country. At that time, Howard became one of only 25 private universities, and the only
minority-serving university, to have reached that lofty status. In its subsequent revised
classification in 2000, Howard was again listed in Carnegie’s top classification for research
universities, Doctoral/Research Extensive, which contained 149 institutions.
In 2005, Carnegie once again revised its classification system. This time, Howard ranked in the
top overall category for research universities with medical schools, specifically Comprehensive
Doctoral with Medical/Veterinary Schools, alongside 78 of the nation’s leading research
universities. In this 2005 Carnegie classification, Howard was listed in the second research
grouping among research universities, “High Research Activity,” as opposed to “Highest
Research Activity.”
While there is great debate within the academic community as to the validity of rankings of
universities by various popular publications, Howard, nonetheless, does fairly well in relation to
the nation’s major research universities. For example, in the most recent U.S. News and World
Report rankings, Howard University ranked 96th among what the magazine classifies as “Top
National Research Universities,” tied with Stony Brook University–SUNY and the University of
Arizona, and ranked above such major research universities as Arizona State University,
University at Buffalo–SUNY, University of Massachusetts–Amherst, University of Oklahoma,
and University of Oregon. This same publication ranks Howard 36th among the Top 50 “Best
Value” National Research Universities when both quality and costs factors are considered
together, just behind Georgetown University and ahead of such institutions as the University of
Texas–Austin, Boston College, the University of Miami, Syracuse University, Tulane
University, and the University of California–Berkeley.
In rankings within academic disciplines by popular publications and by such research
organizations as the National Research Council, however, Howard University’s record is mixed.
For example, the Wall Street Journal ranks its School of Business as the top business school in
the country for minority graduates. Some of Howard’s academic disciplines rank in the upper
one quarter—and sometimes even higher—among those offered at other universities. Other
academic disciplines are ranked variously in the third and fourth quartiles when compared to
their peers.
Within this context, Howard University seeks to build upon the solid reputation it has garnered
among the nation’s research universities to advance to an even higher stature. To begin with, the
9

University aspires to advance to Carnegie’s Highest Research Activity category among the
nation’s research universities. Indeed, the University has established a goal of exceeding $100
million of extramural research activity by 2010.
Similarly, Howard seeks to advance to the First Tier among National Research Universities in
the aforementioned national publications and advance all of its academic disciplines to at least
the top half in relation to their peers at other research universities and to increase the number of
niche areas that rank in the upper echelon of their disciplines.
An effort has been made to establish benchmarks for Howard to compare itself with other
research universities of comparable size with medical and engineering schools. In this regard, for
purposes of the Self-Study, an informal process was conducted internally to obtain broad
university community input relative to a possible list of peer/aspirational institutions against
which Howard might compare itself with respect to the quality of its academic programs; the
allocation of its resources; and the effectiveness of its policies, practices, and systems. Although
more than 30 institutions were recommended for consideration, the following 10 institutions
were selected by the Steering Committee for use by the Work Groups for benchmark purposes:
Case Western Reserve University, Emory University, George Washington University,
Georgetown University, Saint Louis University, Temple University, Tulane University, the
University of Maryland–College Park, Vanderbilt University, and Washington University in
Saint Louis. 1
While Howard University aspires to compete with the nation’s leading research universities, it
remains mindful, nonetheless, that it must also compete assiduously for the nation’s best
African-American undergraduate students with many liberal arts and master’s focused
institutions. In particular, Howard competes with the nation’s leading HBCUs, such as Hampton
University, Morehouse College, and Spelman College for talented, African-American
undergraduate students.
The Self-Study Scope of Work and Context
The Self-Study will be of the comprehensive model as defined by the Middle States Commission
on Higher Education’s Self-Study: Creating a Useful Process and Report, with additionally
focused attention to the area of research. Because the University is in a transition period that will
result in the appointment of a new president in 2008, the comprehensive model appears to be the
most appropriate one for the University to use at this time in assessing the effectiveness of the
policies and practices that undergird its systems and operations.
The University has chosen also to conduct a thorough and focused look at its research enterprise.
It will specifically examine its infrastructure for supporting extramurally funded research; the
reward system for faculty to conduct research and obtain grants and contracts to support
research; the allocation of funds to support faculty and student research; and the extent to which
1 In the 1999 Self-Study, the following ten institutions were used as peer institutions: Emory University,
Georgetown University, St. John’s University, Temple University, Tulane University, Vanderbilt University,
University of Cincinnati, University of Maryland, University of Miami, and University of Virginia.
10

esearch is an integral part of the academic experience for undergraduate, graduate, and
professional school students. Because of Howard’s classification by the Carnegie Foundation for
the Advancement of Teaching and its aspirations for the future as described above, it is a
propitious time for the University to conduct a thorough and extensive assessment of its research
enterprise.
The Self-Study will be grounded within the broad scope of Howard University’s historic role in
American higher education, assess how it compares with its peer institutions, and examine its
aspirations as a major, national research university. Further, the study will evaluate the context of
institutional mission, goals, and aspirations. Finally, the process will be open and transparent and
use a variety of face-to-face and electronic means to elicit participation and involvement from all
segments of the university community at every phase of work.
With respect to the University’s recent history, Howard conducts this Self-Study approximately
20 years after the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching classified Howard
University as a Research I university for the first time—the first for a minority-serving university
in the United States. Thus, it is timely for the university to examine all of its policies, systems,
operations, and resource allocations to determine their “goodness of fit” relative to its goals,
mission, and aspirations as a research university.
The Self-Study coincides also with the Howard University’s celebration of its 50 th anniversary of
awarding its first Ph.D. degree. Since 1958, the year when the University awarded its first Ph.D.
degree, it has made a meteoric rise as a doctoral granting institution. While it awards the Ph.D.
degree annually to a multicultural, multiracial, and international group of recipients, Howard has
become the nation’s largest on-campus producer of African-American Ph.D. recipients and the
largest producer of African-American Ph.D.s in many fields. Annual Ph.D. productivity has been
central to the University’s rise in the Carnegie classification.
On a broader scale, Howard conducts the Self-Study at a time of great change and challenge in
American higher education, which has a direct bearing on the University. For example, Howard,
like its peers, faces increased public expectations for greater accountability and documentation of
quality in an environment of increased costs and challenged financial resources. Moreover,
Howard continues to be a major player in the national imperative to strengthen access and
success for its culturally and racially diverse citizenry, while simultaneously seeking to continue
to meet greater competition from the global community for the world’s best students and
scholars. Finally, Howard, like the entire higher education community, addresses the rise of
interdisciplinary approaches and changing ways of enhancing student learning, including a
greater reliance on technology. These developments, and others, call for heightened assessments
of issues of curriculum, teaching, student learning, and all phases of university life.
Appointments of Senior Level Leadership
Steps Taken To Prepare for the Self-Study
President Swygert launched the University-Wide Self-Study in March 2007. Acting on the
recommendation of Dr. Richard A. English, Provost and Chief Academic Officer, he appointed
Dr. Orlando L. Taylor, Vice Provost for Research and Dean of the Graduate School, to chair the
11

Self-Study and Steering Committees and to provide overall oversight for the process through the
anticipated site visit in the Spring of 2009. Dr. Taylor, a national leader within his discipline and
one who has served as a faculty member and held many administrative positions at the
University since 1973, is a seasoned veteran of higher education who has been a participant in
many major developments at national research universities. Dr. Taylor served as Chair of the
University-wide Self-Study Committee in 1987–89 in preparation for the University’s successful
quest for reaffirmation of its accreditation in 1989.
The initial phase of the Self-Study process was conducted under the Office of the Provost, with
infrastructure and administrative support being provided as required. Dr. English, former dean of
Howard’s School of Social Work, and similarly a national leader within his field, appointed Dr.
Alvin Thornton, Associate Provost, to serve as a liaison to the Self-Study process.
In a subsequent action, Dr. Donald Wilson, Senior Vice President of Health Affairs, upon the
request of the President, appointed Dr. Charlene Hogan, Associate Dean of the College of
Pharmacy, Nursing, and Allied Health Sciences, to serve in a similar role as Dr. Thornton. Dr.
Hogan provides liaison between the Self-Study leadership and Dr. Donald Wilson, Senior Vice
President for Health Sciences, and the Chief Administrative Officer for the College of Medicine;
the College of Dentistry; and the College of Pharmacy, Nursing, and Allied Health Sciences
The University President provides overall leadership of the Self-Study process and Dr. O.
Jackson Cole, Executive Assistant to the President, serves as his liaison officer with Dr. Taylor
and the Self-Study community. The President has designated Dr. Cole as the University’s
Association Liaison Officer to the Middle States Commission on Higher Education. Dr. Cole
served as one of the central administration liaison officers for the 1999 Self-Study and as a
member of that Study’s Executive Committee.
Board of Trustee Engagement
Because of the centrality of the Self-Study process to Board of Trustee interests, and its
relationship to other Board initiatives, namely the Presidential Search Committee, the Leadership
Transition Committee, the Long Range Financial Planning Committee, and its own Academic
Excellence Initiative, two Board members were designated to work directly with the Self-Study
process. Specifically, Ms. Marie Johns, Chair of the Board’s Academic Excellence Committee,
agreed to serve on the Self-Study Steering Committee and Dr. Charles McDonald agreed to serve
as an external committee member and Board liaison for the Mission and Goals and Leadership
and Governance Work Groups.
Steering and Executive Committees Established
Due to the comprehensive nature of the Self-Study and the vast amounts of data and resources to
collect and analyze, the University formed an Executive Committee and a Steering Committee to
direct and organize the work of administrators, faculty, staff, and students.
The Steering Committee comprises a broad range of individuals from the University. In addition
to including faculty, administrators, staff, and students, the Steering Committee includes Board
of Trustee members who are actively engaged in the Self-Study process. The Steering
Committee handles the overall direction of the Self-Study.
12

The Executive Committee consists of a small group of individuals who hold high-level
administrative and leadership positions on campus. This committee reports directly to the
president of the University and serves as the overarching governing body of the Self-Study
process.
A complete membership list of the Steering Committee, Executive Committee, and Work Groups
may be found in Appendix A.
Work Groups Appointed
Shortly after the appointment of the chair, a process was launched to populate the 15 work
groups designated to conduct the Self-Study: one group each for the 14 standards of accreditation
provided by the Middle States Commission and one additional work group on research. In an
effort to develop a broad pool of candidates for the work group nominations and suggested work
groups, memberships were invited from several university leadership constituencies: the senior
administrative officers of the University; the deans of the schools and colleges; the directors of
academic support units; the leadership of the University’s staff organization; and the leadership
of the University’s general, undergraduate, graduate, and professional school student bodies.
Volunteers from throughout the University were also invited to submit their names and areas of
interest.
From this pool of candidates, staffs from the Office of the Provost and the Office of the Vice
Provost for Research and Dean of the Graduate School populated the work groups in accordance
with the stated interests of the nominees and volunteers and the knowledge of the previous
experiences and expertise of the nominees. All nominees and volunteers were subsequently
selected and assigned to a work group, resulting in approximately 7–10 persons assigned to each
group.
University Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation
Because of the centrality of assessment and evaluation to the effective operation of the
University, an Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation (OIAE) was recently opened,
with Dr. Gerunda Hughes serving as the initial director. The OIAE reports to the Office of the
Provost and Chief Academic Officer. The OIAE is responsible for the assessment and evaluation
of all aspects of university academic programs and administrative functions. The OIAE will
work in coordination with the Middle States Self-Study staff to provide support for the
University Self-Study leadership and the work groups as required to collect and disseminate
existing assessment data and reports to address the research questions developed by the 15 work
groups. The OIAE will assist the Self-Study staff in the development, analysis, and interpretation
of data derived from questionnaires and other sources of quantitative and qualitative sources to
support the Self-Study agenda. It will work in close cooperation with the Self-Study Chair and
Coordinator of the University-Wide Self-Study and the chairs of the Work Groups on
institutional assessment and evaluation and the assessment of student learning.
Assessment of all phases of university life will inform all aspects of this inquiry. Thus, in
addition to the OIAE, the Self-Study exercise will also work in close collaboration with other
University units charged with assessment, data gathering, and planning; specifically, the Office
13

of Institutional Research, the Center for Teaching, Learning, and Assessment (CETLA), and
other data gathering units within the Office of the Provost and Chief Academic Officer.
Links to University Initiatives
In preparing to launch the University-Wide Self-Study for Middle States reaffirmation of
accreditation, the Self-Study leadership was mindful of other related efforts underway at the
University, as well as the need to articulate with those efforts, as appropriate, to decrease
unnecessary redundancy and to strengthen the final Self-Study product. Specifically, those
efforts were as follows:
• The Presidential Search: a committee of the Board of Trustees established to search for
and recommend a new President of Howard University to replace outgoing President, H.
Patrick Swygert, who will retire on June 30, 2008.
• The Academic Excellence Initiative: an initiative of the Academic Excellence Committee
of the Board of Trustees and the Office of the Provost designed to provide the
assessments and recommendations required to align the departmental and programmatic
offerings of the schools and colleges with strategic objectives and financial resources.
• The Long Range Financial Planning: a special committee of the Board of Trustees
charged with the responsibility for recommending a strategy for aligning the University’s
budget with its mission and goals, and with ascertaining evolving trends in higher
education and the society at large that affect Howard University’s present and future
status as a national research university with a predominantly African-American student
body.
• Accreditation efforts in the various schools, colleges, and selected support units from
national professional societies and accrediting agencies.
Self-Study Goals and Objectives
The Self-Study will provide the data and analyses required to demonstrate that Howard
University continues to meet the Characteristics of Excellence, as defined by the Middle States
Commission on Higher Education, and to document its eligibility to have its accreditation
reaffirmed. The University’s governing board, administrative leadership, faculty, and the general
University community will use the results of the Self-Study to advance further the University’s
mission as a national research university of the first rank that is competitive with its peers and
poised to achieve its aspirational institutional goals and objectives.
The Self-Study report will be part of the reports and information that will be available to the
incoming Howard University President as a basis for continued strategic planning and definition
of the future course of the institution.
Our goal, therefore, is to produce a living document that will provide a “snapshot” of the
University for its relevant stakeholders to assist them in defining the University’s future within
the context of its past and current standing.
14

Self-Study Office Staff
A professional staff was hired to provide administrative and coordinating support for the
development of the Self-Study. The staff consists of a coordinator, Dr. Ronyelle Bertrand Ricard,
an administrative assistant, a research data analyst, a technical writer, a Web designer, and
several graduate assistants. Staff personnel are listed in Appendix A.
Work Groups: Scope and Major Research Questions
The titles, chairs, scopes of work, objectives, and major research questions of the work groups
assigned to assess the 14 standards plus the additional research topic are listed below.
Standard 1: Mission and Goals
• Chair: Dr. Horace Dawson, International Affairs
Scope of Work and Objectives.
This scope of work defines the University’s purpose within the context of higher education
serving a diverse student and faculty population, in particular a predominately African-American
student body. The scope of work also examines how the University develops and meets stated
goals.
Major Research Questions.
As an HBCU, Howard has expanded its influence on the national and global stage through its
educational partnerships with universities abroad. This expanded role and other factors,
including the report of observations of the 1999 Self-Study visiting team, suggest, in particular,
two broad questions that should guide the appropriateness of a recommendation that the revision
of the University’s existing mission statement should be considered. Those two broad questions
are presented first in the following listing, along with five other related questions of interest.
1. Does the existing mission statement accurately reflect “who we are” in terms of the place
of Howard University as a national, research university with a predominately African
American constituency?
2. Does the existing mission statement accurately capture “where we want to be” and how
the University wishes to be perceived?
3. Should the mission statement continue to place emphasis on providing education to
“Black” students given the diverse student population?
4. Should the mission statement reflect Howard’s openness to diversity especially to
persons from across the African Diaspora?
5. Should the mission statement contain a stronger view reflecting the University’s
commitment to research?
6. What kind of students does the University wish to recruit, high “quality”, high “potential”
or both?
7. Does the current mission statement adequately convey the University’s commitment to
internationalism?
15

Standard 2: Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal
• Chair: Professor William Spriggs, Economics
Scope of Work and Objectives.
This scope of work will govern the collection or creation of plans that assess such areas as
community relations, annual budgeting process, capital needs, enrollment, academic excellence,
technological adeptness, unit-level resource allocation, and financial planning process. Howard’s
approach for meeting Standard 2 will be informed by the Mission statement and goals of the
University and the current Strategic Framework for Action. The work group will determine to
what extent the University has adequate processes to plan to accomplish its mission and goals
and how well the University aligns its activities at all levels (for example, technology, facility
use, academic, and human resources) through a planning process. The work group will also
determine how those plans then lead to a process by which assessments can be made.
Major Research Questions.
1. Does the University have a strategic plan, and what is the process by which the plan is
developed, including:
• Which stakeholders are involved in creating the plan?
• What insures its alignment with the University mission?
• Does the plan lead to outcomes that can be, and are, assessed?
2. How does the strategic plan then lead to subsequent planning exercises by different units
(those academic units that report directly to the Provost or Senior Vice President for
Health Sciences and those administrative offices that report directly to a senior vice
president of the University) to guide the units’ actions?
3. What is the extent to which the University’s strategic plan and subsequent revisions are
driven by assessment data?
4. How are technology needs coordinated to accomplish goals in the strategic plan and
assessed and updated in accordance with changing needs?
5. What is the plan for facility use and upkeep, in the coordination of facility usage and the
plan for addressing facility usage within the context of the institutional mission and
priorities?
6. What is the University’s academic plan, and the assessment of such plans? What is the
academic unit planning process, and the enrollment management planning process and
how are these decisions made to assure the adequate resources are in place to accomplish
each within the context of the University’s mission and goals?
7. How is the University’s human resource planning process aligned with its strategic plan,
including consideration of such matters as personnel succession of key leaders, faculty
retention and retirements?
8. Is the current University budget adequately aligned with its mission and academic
priorities?
Standard 3: Institutional Resources
• Chair: Dean Beatrice Adderley-Kelly, Pharmacy, Nursing, and Allied Health Sciences
16

Scope of Work and Objectives.
This scope of work covers the assessment of the availability and accessibility of the human,
financial, technical, and physical facilities necessary to achieve Howard’s mission and goals.
Informed by Howard’s mission, the work group will also analyze the use of the University’s
resources as part of an ongoing outcomes assessment. The work group will collect relevant data,
analyze the institution’s internal and external resources, and determine the extent to which
resources are effectively and efficiently allocated and used in achieving the University’s mission
and goals. The work group’s objectives are as follows:
• To examine the University’s plan for assessing, allocating, and using resources
• To assess and analyze how effectively and efficiently the resources support the mission
and goals of the University
• To interpret the findings in the context of Middle States standards
• To document strengths and areas for improvement
Major Research Questions.
1. Is there an overall university plan for assessing and allocating institutional resources?
2. What manner of annual independent audit will confirm the financial responsibility, with
evidence of follow-up on any concerns cited in the audit’s accompanying management
letter?
3. Is the current University’s educational programs/facilities plan aligned with the Middle-
States standards?
4. What have been the effect of departmental program reviews on institutional policies and
the use of resources?
5. Is the University’s plan for deferred maintenance adequate to maintain the facilities for
safety, security, structural, and regulatory requirements?
6. How much of the University’s current expenditures can be identified going towards
facilities deferred maintenance? What percentage is it of the total university budget?
7. Are the numbers of faculty, staff, and administration adequate and aligned to support the
University’s mission, outcomes, and expectations? How is this determined and who or
what body makes the determination?
8. What procedures and assessment plans are in place to ensure adequate faculty, staff, and
administration to support the University’s mission, and outcomes expectations?
9. How effectively has Howard’s pay scale and benefits package kept pace with the
departmental requirements for a significantly more sophisticated and highly skilled staff?
10. What are the processes in place to assess the effectiveness of interventions, if any, that
have been introduced in enrollment management, human resources, physical facilities
management, and other parts of the University?
11. How is the budget process implemented in relationship to the University’s strategic plan?
12. What effect does Howard University Hospital have on University resources and academic
programs?
13. How do auxiliary enterprise and other entities affect the University’s resources?
14. What are the most significant challenges facing the institution relative to human
resources, technology resources, and physical plant resources during the next 5 years?
Standard 4: Leadership and Governance
• Chair: Dean Kurt Schmoke, Law
17

Scope of Work and Objectives.
This scope of work covers the gathering of data to assess whether Howard University’s system
of governance clearly defines the roles of institutional constituencies in policy development and
decision-making. The work group will also assess the governing body’s degree of autonomy to
ensure its institutional integrity and its responsibility toward policy and resource development,
consistent with Howard’s mission. To work efficiently and to assure corroboration of both
quantitative and non-quantitative data, the work group will work collaboratively with other work
groups. It has been determined that at a minimum there are three other work groups with whom
this work group will be involved:
• Standard 2 Work Group to assess how the governance structure is involved in the
University’s planning process
• Standard 5 Work Group to examine how administrative structures interact with
governance structures to support the institutional mission
• Standard 7 Work Group to examine how assessment is used to guide the leadership and
governance structures
Major Research Questions.
1. Does Howard University have a well-defined system of collegial governance including
written policies outlining governance responsibilities of administration and faculty and
readily available to the campus community?
2. How well does the governing body function in practice?
3. Does Howard University possess written governing documents, such as a constitution,
by-laws, enabling legislation, charter, or other similar documents that delineate the
governance structure, provide for collegial governance, and assign authority and
accountability for policy development and decision-making?
4. Does Howard University provide appropriate opportunity for student input regarding
decisions that affect them?
5. Does the University’s governing body fulfill its fiduciary responsibilities to a level that
will ensure the University’s continued compliance with the accreditation standards of the
Middle States Commission?
6. Does the University’s governing body reflect constituent and public interest and is it of
an appropriate size to fulfill all of its responsibilities?
7. How does the governing body certify to the Commission that the University complies
with eligibility requirements, accreditation standards, and policies of the Commission?
8. Does the Howard University governing body assist in generating resources needed to
sustain and improve the University?
9. What manner of conflict of interest policies are in place for the governing body to
address matters such as remuneration, contractual relationships, employment, family, or
financial interests that could interfere with the duties of the governing body?
10. What is the nature and extent of faculty input into policy decisions that may affect them?
These key questions contain within them numerous sub-levels of inquiry. Throughout the
inquiry, the work group will focus on both policy and practice to determine whether practice is
always aligned with stated policy.
18

Standard 5: Administration
• Chair: Ms. Jacqueline Smith, Social Work
Scope of Work and Objectives.
This scope of work describes the formal administrative structure of the University and the
events, activities, and strategies implemented by administrative leaders used to achieve its goals
and objectives. The description will provide a context for understanding processes and outcomes
of institutional decision-making. In addition to the minimal criteria mentioned in the first, seven
research questions, this section of the report will capture dynamic changes initiated by critical
events, significant leaders, and any informal processes that are associated with institutional
outcomes.
Research Questions.
1. What leadership activities has the chief executive undertaken to help the University
achieve its goals?
2. Does the chief executive’s academic background and professional training “fit” or
“match” the assigned responsibilities and/or job description?
3. Do the administrative leaders have the appropriate or suitable skills, degrees, and training
to carry out their responsibilities and functions?
4. Does the staff have the appropriate qualifications for the goals, type, size, and complexity
of the University?
5. Are there adequate information and decision-making systems in place to support the work
of administrative leaders?
6. Is there clear documentation of the lines of organization and authority?
7. What is the frequency and extent of the periodic assessment of the effectiveness of
administrative structures and services?
8. What is the administrative structure of the University?
9. How does the administrative structure function?
10. What is the systemic effect of the administrative structure and its functioning on system
participants?
Standard 6: Integrity
• Chair: Professor D. Kortright Davis, Divinity
Scope of Work and Objectives.
This scope of work assesses the programs, processes, and practices of Howard University to
ensure that it is adhering to ethical standards that are consistent with its stated policies, mission,
goals, and objectives. It will also assess the degree to which the University’s public and
constituencies are informed clearly and fully through its various modes of communication.
Specifically, the scope of work examines the extent to which Howard University demonstrates
integrity “through the manner in which it specifies its goals, selects, and retains its faculty;
admits students; establishes curricula; determines programs of research; pursues its fields of
service; demonstrates sensitivity to equity and diversity issues; allocates its resources; serves the
public interest; and provides for the success of its students.” This will inevitably involve such
issues as transparency, consistency, impartiality, fairness, clarity, accountability, and modes of
19

effective communication. Key to all of this is a carefully established definitional approach to the
meaning of “Integrity” itself as understood throughout the University. The work group will be
guided by a search for adequate answers to a number of research questions.
Research Questions.
1. Are there fair and impartial processes, widely published and readily available, to address
student grievances?
2. Are student grievances addressed promptly, equitably, and appropriately?
3. Are there fair and impartial practices in the hiring, evaluation, and dismissal of
employees?
4. Does Howard demonstrate sound ethical practices and respect for individuals through its
teaching, scholarship/research, service, and administrative practice, including the
avoidance of conflict of interest?
5. What are the University’s standards for academic integrity, academic freedom,
intellectual freedom, and freedom of expression? Which documents convey that
information to its stakeholders?
6. Is there an equitable and consistent treatment of constituencies, as demonstrated in such
areas as the application of academic requirements and policies, student discipline, student
evaluation, and grievance procedures?
7. To what the extent is the climate of academic inquiry and engagement supported by
widely disseminated policies regarding academic freedom?
8. How is the word “Integrity” defined by the following Howard University sectors that
represent the various University stakeholders: The Board of Trustees, the Faculty Senate,
Howard University Support Staff Organization (HUSSO), Howard University Student
Association (HUSA), Graduate Student Association (GSA), union and non-union
employees, and Howard University Alumni Association?
9. How is integrity integral to the functional areas of Howard University: procurement,
fiscal affairs, facilities management, academic affairs, student affairs, alumni affairs,
human resource management, general counsel, research administration, security affairs,
development affairs, and the community-related associations?
10. How does the University promote academic integrity on campus? Who is responsible for
promoting integrity in the academic research community, as well as in the student
population’s activities in scholarship and learning?
11. Is there peer review among all departments and divisions in the University?
12. What indications exist to offer information about plagiarism on campus, both in the
research and academic societies on campus?
13. How does Howard University create a learning environment for 21 st century leaders that
is in alignment with the “Mission of Howard University” for all schools and colleges?
14. How is integrity monitored and assessed among administrators, researchers, students, and
staff at any University?
15. How does Howard University monitor, assess, and ensure that the persons trained in
customer/client relations will demonstrate this training towards the student population?
16. How does Howard University distribute resources throughout the institution in such a
way as to ensure equity for all schools and colleges?
17. Is the information in Howard University’s documents readily available, and consistent
throughout all media: Web sites, catalogs, brochures, and recruitment material?
20

18. What specific policies within each of the units of Howard University address the
requirement for integrity to be incorporated into each unit’s mission, goals, and
objectives?
19. Is there periodic assessment of Howard University’s policies, processes, and practices, as
far as integrity is concerned?
Standard 7: Institutional Assessment
• Chair: Professor Lorraine Fleming, Engineering
Scope of Work and Objectives.
This scope of work examines the degree to which Howard University has developed and
implemented an assessment process that evaluates its overall effectiveness in achieving its
mission and goals and its compliance with accreditation standards. Standard 7 is unique because
it actually assesses the assessment of the other standards. Each standard requires a thorough
assessment of the area that it addresses. The task of the Standard 7 Work Group is to tie together
these assessments and address the fundamental questions “How well is Howard University doing
what it says it is doing?” and “How do we know?” The Standard 7 Work Group will also
examine the data gathered by the other work groups, analyze that data, draw conclusions, and
make recommendations as is appropriate.
Research Questions.
The work of the Standard 7 Work Group will be based on the findings of the other fourteen work
groups. Based upon this input, Work Group 7 will address five basic research questions:
1. Does the institution, including all of its units, have an assessment plan that cuts across the
entire university community, which involves, at minimum, academics, infrastructure, and
support units?
2. Who or what offices are responsible for coordinating assessment plans across the
University and serve as the custodian of such data from academic, research and support
units?
3. How is institutional assessment data used in ongoing strategic planning by the university?
4. Are data derived from such plans transparent and easily obtained from the academic
community?
5. To what extent are institutional data used to drive budgetary categories, priorities, and
allocations?
Standard 8: Student Admissions and Retention
• Chair: Ms. Carole Borggren, Budget and Finance
Scope of Work and Objectives.
This scope of work examines the enrollment management programs throughout the University,
both in the central Enrollment Management Office that recruits undergraduate students, and in
the graduate and professional schools and colleges that manage their own recruitment. The
fundamental goal assesses whether the University defines, recruits, and retains students whose
interests, goals, and abilities are congruent with the mission of Howard University.
21

The first aspect of the scope gathers data, compiling an inventory of Howard’s policies,
programs, and key statistics on enrollment management and student retention. The second aspect
of the scope analyzes the data, examines the extent to which all of the schools and colleges are
able to recruit and retain students who belong at Howard and who can succeed, identifies the
factors (including financial aid) that either promote or hinder the University’s success, in so
doing, and makes recommendations as appropriate. The third aspect of the scope helps the
University sustain an institution-wide culture of assessment. This work group will identify for
the new Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation those programs that can serve as
models for the rest of the University community, in that they consistently engage in practices of
setting strategy, defining goals, measuring outcomes, and using those outcomes to improve
programs.
Research Questions.
1. What kind of student(s) does the University want?
2. How effective is the University at recruiting and retaining that student?
3. What is the mission for each of the 12 schools/colleges for recruitment and retention?
4. What are the plans and most recent results for performing ongoing assessment of student
success including retention?
5. What are the rates for student retention and graduation, and how are they evaluated?
6. When the University admits students who only marginally meet the qualifications
expected of incoming students, what support is provided to help them thrive?
7. Does the University have statements of expected student learning outcomes by school,
college or program, and how is that information made available to prospective students,
current students and faculty?
8. What are the assessment plans and most recent results for determining the effectiveness
of admissions policies and criteria available to assist the prospective student in making
informed decisions?
Standard 9: Student Support Services
• Chair: Associate Vice President Celia Maxwell, Medicine
Scope of Work and Objectives.
This scope of work assesses the degree to which Howard provides student support services
necessary to enable each student to achieve the University’s goals for students. Within the scope
of the University, student support services can reinforce and extend the college’s influence
beyond the classroom. The quality of campus life contributes significantly to student learning;
therefore, institutions, and particularly those with residential populations, should be attentive to a
wide range of student life issues. The delivery of student support services should be flexible in
nature and vary according to the needs of the student body. In general, students’ needs may
include academic support, healthcare, including mental healthcare and social support.
Additionally, institutional mission and programs should be available to provide support to
diverse student populations such as older students, students with disabilities, international
students, distance learning students, and the off-campus student population. Moreover, the
objective is to assess which student support services are offered and, more importantly, to assess
the students’ knowledge of these services.
22

Research Questions.
What programs of student support services are available that are appropriate to student strengths
and needs, reflective of the University’s mission and consistent with student learning
expectations?
1. What are the current written policies and procedures governing the student body?
2. What procedures are in place to address the various student needs, both academic and
non-academic, in a manner that is equitable, supportive, and sensitive?
3. What procedures, widely disseminated, are in place for equitably addressing student
complaints or grievances?
4. Are the students needs being served appropriately, accurately, and effectively through
student support services and if so, how? How do student support services fit into the
organizational structure of each school on the campus?
5. How well are the policies for the release of student information published and
implemented?
6. What improvements can the University make in technology to increase the effectiveness
of delivery to student support services?
7. Are the athletic programs regulated by the same academic, fiscal, and administrative
principles, norms, and procedures that govern other institutional programs?
8. What ongoing assessment plans are in place to examine student support services?
Standard 10: Faculty
• Chair: Professor A. Wade Boykin, Psychology
Scope of Work and Objectives.
This scope of work governs a comprehensive self-examination of the status, activities,
perceptions, future projections, and goals of the faculty at Howard University. The work group
will gauge not only how Howard’s faculty stacks up against the standards set forth by the Middle
States Commission, but also how it compares against the standards that should be met, if not
exceeded, if it is to be widely considered as a world-class university.
Research Questions.
The work group seeks to address three broad questions. What is the current quality level of the
Howard faculty? What is the professional experience like for Howard faculty? What processes
are in place to ensure and even enhance faculty quality at Howard? These broad concerns
translate into the following research questions that the work group will pursue.
1. What is the descriptive portrait of the current Howard faculty?
2. What is the professional quality of life for the faculty at Howard and what are the
perceived challenges and professional opportunities for the faculty at Howard?
3. What is the measurable effect of the faculty on Howard students?
4. What are the processes currently in place to ensure faculty quality and productivity?
5. What are the processes and mechanisms that need to be in place to ensure sustainability
and enhancement of faculty quality and productivity?
6. What are the assessment plans and most recent results for determining the effectiveness
of the following items and how are they being used:
23

• The appointment, promotion and tenure policy and procedure
• Faculty evaluation procedure for salary and merit adjustments
• The role and responsibility of full-time, part-time, adjunct faculty (for example, teaching
loads, committee work, service to the community, and research)
• Published policies and procedures (for example, faculty handbook, travel policy, and
sabbatical leave policy)
Standard 11: Educational Offerings
Chair: Professor Rodney Green, Economics
Scope of Work and Objectives.
This scope of work encompasses all of the academic and professional schools within the
University, as well as many of the support units. The research design will address the academic
content, rigor, and coherence, as well as student learning goals and objectives, within each of the
academic units. The overall success of the University in achieving appropriate levels of academic
content, rigor, and coherence, and student goals and objectives, will reflect this unit-by-unit
analysis.
Research Questions.
1. What are the educational offerings (degree and certification programs) and related
faculty, staff and student levels, qualifications, and characteristics?
2. What have been the processes and outcomes of self-studies, external reviews, and
responses to reviews across university units?
3. Are the educational offerings congruent with the Howard University mission?
4. Are expected learning outcomes properly articulated and documented in university units?
5. Are there appropriate assessment tools for determining if the expected outcomes are
being achieved?
6. Do expected learning outcomes align well with the associated curriculum/a?
7. Are learning resources appropriate for the educational offerings available, including
resources and instructional processes to assure information literacy among students?
8. What are the periodic assessments of the effectiveness of curricular, co-curricular, and
extra-curricular experiences and how are such assessments used to improve student
academic and personal development?
Standard 12: General Education
• Chair: Associate Dean Barbara Griffin, Arts and Sciences
Scope of Work and Objectives.
This scope of work examines whether or not Howard University’s general education curricula
are “designed so that students acquire and demonstrate college-level proficiency in general
education and essential skills, including at least oral and written communication, scientific and
quantitative reasoning, critical analysis and reasoning, and technological competency”
(Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education, p.47). On a broader scale, the General
Education Work Group will seek to explore those questions that will position the University to
24

provide a thorough response to the question of whether or not it is providing to all
undergraduates a highly competitive, relevant, first-rate educational experience reflective of the
University’s missions and goals.
Research Questions.
1. What is the value of a liberal arts education and core curriculum at peer institutions?
2. What are the core courses required of students in each school at Howard University?
3. Are objectives clearly stated for the general education requirements in each school?
4. How effectively are general education requirements and major academic program
requirements linked and interrelated?
5. Are core courses in each school integrated into Howard University “universal”
experiences? In other words, do these courses reflect the presence of a common set of
themes and competencies?
6. Are there first-year core requirements in each school?
7. Do first-year programs share a common core of information students must know about
Howard University?
8. Are some schools using alternative core experiences in lieu of courses?
9. Are there assessment components in place for general education programs in each
school? In other words, what evidence exists that graduates meet expected, acceptable
levels of competency in oral and written communication, scientific and quantitative
reasoning, technological capability, information literacy, and critical analysis and
reasoning? Are these levels appropriate given the institutional mission and the needs and
aspirations of students?
Standard 13: Related Educational Activities
• Chair: Professor, Teresa Redd, Center for Excellence in Teaching, Learning, and
Assessment
Scope of Work and Objectives.
This scope of work investigates whether the University’s related educational activities meet the
Middle States Commission’s accreditation standard. According to Middle States, “related
educational activities” include “programs or activities that are characterized by particular
content, focus, location, mode of delivery, or sponsorship.” Specifically, these activities include
basic skills courses, certificate programs, experiential learning opportunities, non-credit
offerings, branch campuses, distance-learning activities, and contractual relationships.
Research Questions.
1. How well does the University identify and place students who lack college-level math,
English, and study skills?
2. How consistently is the University bringing these under prepared students up to the
college level?
3. Should Howard re-examine its commitment to teaching basic skills to students with high
academic potential?
4. Do Howard’s distance-learning courses help the University fulfill its mission? For
example, do these courses enhance quality or increase accessibility? If not, what is
Howard’s rationale for offering these courses?
25

5. If Howard needs to offer distance-learning courses, is it committing enough resources to
ensure success?
6. How can the University offer market-driven certificate programs and maintain quality?
Standard 14: Assessment of Student Learning
• Chair: Professor Veronica Thomas, Education
Scope of Work and Objectives.
This scope of work will assess whether Howard students are able to demonstrate upon
graduation, or at other appropriate points, the necessary acquisition of knowledge, skills, and
competencies consistent with institutional and appropriate higher education goals. The work
group will organize the study design around four expected institutional outcomes:
• Developing clearly articulated written statements, expressed in observable terms, of key
learning outcomes: the knowledge, skills, and competencies that students are expected to
exhibit upon successful completion of a course, academic program, co-curricular
program, general education requirements, or other specific set of experiences
• Providing opportunities for students to achieve articulated learning outcomes
• Assessing student achievement of key learning outcomes
• Using the results of assessment to improve teaching and learning and information
planning and resource allocation
Research Questions.
1. How do units articulate what students are expected to know and be able to do upon
completion of their academic program?
2. What written plans for assessing student learning exist at the course, program,
department, and school/college levels?
3. To what extent do course syllabi clearly articulate student learning outcomes in contrast
to teaching outcomes?
4. What strategies assess the alignment among the intended curriculum (for example, course
syllabi), taught curriculum, and tested curriculum?
5. What university-based processes ensure that academic units have identified studentlearning
outcomes (for example, knowledge, skills, and attitudes) for its graduates?
6. How is the curriculum designed to guide the students toward mastery of the expected
learning outcomes?
7. How do the condition of the facilities affect student learning? Faculty teaching?
8. What is the frequency of course offering (availability of required courses)?
9. To what extent is there consistency in course syllabi and expected learning outcomes
among selected courses (multiple section of the same course)?
10. How does the type of professor (teaching assistants vs. adjunct vs. full-time) affect
student learning and the students’ perception of their learning?
11. What services and experiences do units provide to facilitate student learning? How are
these promoted, communicated, perceived, and used?
12. How do faculty members actively support the extended learning goals of students?
13. What evidence supports the existence and sustainability of a University, school/college-,
and/or department-wide Student Outcomes Assessment Plan? How have assessment
plans been implemented?
26

14. What kinds of formative and summative assessment strategies are faculty members
engaging in at the University?
15. What evidence is collected to determine the extent to which students have acquired the
desired knowledge, skills, and competencies at various levels?
16. To what degree is there an alignment between the University’s General Education Policy
and student learning outcomes in the general education (core curriculum) classes?
17. What types of methods to assess student learning are being used at various levels within
the University as well as university-wide (for example, national exams, portfolios,
rigorously evaluated internships and practica, locally developed tests, departmental
capstone projects or courses, surveys of graduates and employers, course-based
proficiency exams, presentations, multiple measures of proficiency using performancebased
standards, course-based assessment by individual faculty, and comprehensive
examination)?
18. How are assessments of student learning outcomes communicated to students? Other
internal stakeholders (for example, faculty, administrators, staff, and trustees)? Relevant
external stakeholders (for example, employers, alumni, K–12 schools, and other relevant
outside agencies)?
19. How are the assessment results used to evaluate and improve teaching and learning (for
example, curriculum design, course modification such as replacing or revising courses,
changing sequence of courses, adding a requirement or required course, enhancing the
advising process, increasing support services, and improving teaching strategies)?
20. What evidence indicates that student assessment data are linked to and/or integrated with
institutional assessment and the Howard University Strategic Framework for Action?
21. How are assessment results used to make decisions about student progress?
22. What evidence supports that student assessment data are being used to inform resource
allocation, planning, and administrative renewal aimed at improving student-learning
outcomes?
23. How is the assessment of student learning a part of the University’s overall institutional
assessment?
24. To what extent do students perceive that student assessment data are used to improve
instruction and enhance their learning outcomes?
25. How is assessment of student learning being institutionalized?
Special Emphasis: Research
• Chair: Professor Winston Anderson, Biology
Scope of Work and Objectives.
Because of Howard’s preeminence as a Research University serving a predominately African-
American community, the executive and steering committees felt that an additional scope of
work governing research was vital. This scope of work governs the review, evaluation, and
assessment of institutional effectiveness of the research mission and culture in accord with the
following criteria:
• Review and assess publication activity of Howard University faculty in relation to peer
universities
27

• Review and assess extramural activity (research and training grants) of Howard
University faculty, administrators, staff, students, and postdocs in relation to peer
universities
• Review and assess the quality of institutional support for extramural research activity at
the pre-award and post-award levels
• Review and assess the operational functions and efficiency of the University in support of
faculty research activity
• Review and assess the physical facilities provided by the University to support research
activity
• Review and assess the status and support of research training and opportunities for
undergraduate and graduate students in relationship to peer and aspirational research
universities
• Review and assess the level and effectiveness of start-up funds to launch research
programs by new faculty, across the schools and colleges
• Review and assess the level and effectiveness of indirect cost recovery to support
research activity
• Review and assess the effectiveness of intramural grant activity to stimulate research
activity at the University
• Review and assess the University’s effectiveness in institutionalizing successful research
and academic programs and launching new competitive programs in the arts, sciences
and humanities
Research Questions.
1. To what extent has Howard University supported the research infrastructure to provide
cutting edge research in the arts, humanities, and sciences (for example, state of the art
research labs)?
2. To what extent has Howard University recruited faculty, staff, and students to satisfy the
research or teaching mission of the University?
3. Has Howard University successfully institutionalized successful research and training
programs?
4. To what extent are faculty encouraged to apply for extramural funding for the training of
students for academic and/or research careers?
5. To what extent are undergraduate and graduate students supported to conduct competitive
research and to produce publishable material?
6. How are indefinite tenure and 12-month appointments related to research activity and
faculty workload?
7. Does the University have an effective research/training assessment plan?
8. Is the faculty, in general, competent to pursue competitive research comparable to peer
Research I universities?
9. Are there creative ventures that might propel Howard in the competitive world of the 21st
Century?
The work groups will begin their work before the end of the 2006–2007 academic year, with data
collection and other preliminary work to take place during Summer 2007. Work will continue
throughout the 2007–2008 academic year, with a target date for completion of the Self-Study in
28

late spring 2008. The actual site visit will occur during the 2008–2009 academic year. In the
months ahead, the work groups will present a set of detailed timelines towards these goals.
Plans for the Collection, Analysis, and Infusion of Assessment Data into the Self-Study
Exercise
Assessment of all phases of university life will permeate all aspects of this inquiry. Accordingly,
the Self-Study will work in close collaboration with several university units charged with
assessment, data gathering and planning. These units shall be the recently created Office of
Assessment and Evaluation (OAE), the Office of Institutional Research, CETLA, and data
gathering units within the Office of the Provost.
The OAE will coordinate data gathering efforts for the Self-Study in concert with the Office of
the Provost, and it will work directly with relevant work groups to construct, administer, analyze
and prepare reports on specific aspects of university life, policy, and practice deemed appropriate
by the work groups. To prevent unnecessary redundancy, chairs of work groups with desires to
collect original data of stakeholder assessments of the extent and quality of campus life,
resources, and support systems will work with the OAE to construct generic instruments for
faculty, student and staff constituencies.
Additionally, two Self-Study work groups—the Work Group on Assessment of Student Learning
and the Work Group on Institutional Assessment—will pay particular attention to the extent,
quality, and use of assessment data to guide University policy and practice. The Work Group on
Assessment of Student Learning will focus on the use of assessment data by the faculties in the
various schools and colleges to enhance teaching and learning by their students. The Work
Group on Institutional Assessment will focus more generically across all “Characteristics of
Excellence” to determine the quality and extent to which assessment data are collected and used
to inform institutional planning, processes, policies, and operations.
Communications with Work Group and University Community
The Office of the University-wide Self-Study has implemented several measures to communicate
with the Howard community to ensure that the Self-Study process is interactive, transparent, and
collaborative. These techniques include weekly updates on Self-Study activities and milestones
through an electronic newsletter with the John H. Johnson School of Communications. A Web
site has been designed specifically for the Self-Study and it is linked to the Howard University
homepage. Additionally, steering committee members have access to draft documents through a
password-protected Web site that provides them a forum to comment and share their work.
The Self-Study design statement and the draft of the final report will be distributed to the
Executive Committee, Steering Committee, Work Groups, and Board of Trustees. The final Self-
Study report will be made available to the entire Howard University community.
Organization of Final Self-Study Report
A timetable has been prepared for completing the draft self-study, vetting it with the university
community, and submitting it to Middle States in early 2009 in preparation for a site visit in
spring 2009. A copy of the timetable is presented in Appendix B.
29

The final report will be organized in accordance with the following topical outline:
I. Executive Summary
A. Highlights Major Findings in the Self-Study
B. Reference to Information Currently on File with Commission
II. Introduction
A. Institutional Overview
1. Description
2. Mission
3. Aspirations
B. Meeting Middle States’ Criteria
C. Strategic Planning
D. Quality Initiative
E. Global, National and Community Service
III. Execution of Self-Study Process
A. Nature, Scope and Objectives
B. Organizational Structure and Membership
C. Communication with Work Group and University Community
IV. Analysis of Work Group Topics, Charges, and Results
A. Standard 1: Mission and Goals
B. Standard 2: Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal
C. Standard 3: Institutional Resources
D. Standard 4: Leadership and Governance
E. Standard 5: Administration
F. Standard 6: Integrity
G. Standard 7: Institutional Assessment
H. Standard 8: Student Admissions and Retention
30

I. Standard 9: Student Support Services
J. Standard 10: Faculty
K. Standard 11: Educational Offerings
L. Standard 12: General Education
M. Standard 13: Related Educational Activities
N. Standard 14: Assessment of Student Learning
O. Additional Standard: Research
V. Evaluation of Educational Effectiveness
A. Teaching and Learning Processes
B. Assessment of Diversity
VI. Outcomes Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness
A. Description of Resource Data Used for Evaluation
B. Formative and Summative Strategies
C. Improvement Recommendations for Data Collection and Assessment
VII.
Accomplishments
VIII. Recommendations
IX. Conclusion
A. Appendices
31

Appendix A: Membership of
Executive Committee, Steering
Committee, Work Groups, and
Professional Staff

Appendix A: Membership of Executive Committee, Steering Committee, Work Groups,
and Professional Staff
The names of the Executive and Steering Committee members, the Work Group Chairs, and the
members of the Work Groups are as follows.
Executive Committee
• Theodore Bremner, Faculty Senate Chair
• O. Jackson Cole, Executive Assistant to the President
• Virgil Ecton, Vice President for University Advancement
• Richard English, Provost and Chief Academic Officer
• Sidney H. Evans Jr., Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
• Artis Hampshire-Cowan, Senior Vice President and Secretary of the Board of Trustees
• Charlene Hogan, Assistant Dean, Pharmacy, Nursing and Allied Health Sciences
• Marie Johns, Board of Trustees
• Brenda Joyner, President of the Howard University Staff Organization
• Oliver McGee III, Vice President for Research and Compliance
• Hassan Minor, Senior Vice President for Strategic Planning and External Affairs
• Alvin Thornton, Associate Provost
• Marcus Ware, Howard University Student Association President
• Donald Wilson, Senior Vice President for Health Sciences
Steering Committee
• Beatrice Adderley-Kelly, Pharmacy, Nursing and Allied Health Sciences
• Winston Anderson, Biology
• Carole Borggren, Office of Budget and Finance
• A. Wade Boykin, Psychology
• Franklin Chambers, Student Affairs
• O. Jackson Cole, Office of the President
• D. Kortright Davis, Divinity
• Horace Dawson, Ralph Bunche International Affairs
• James Donaldson, Arts and Sciences
• Alfred Fisher, Office of Senior Vice President for Health Sciences
• Lorraine Fleming, Engineering
• Rodney Green, Center for Urban Progress
• Barbara Griffin, Arts and Sciences
• Charlene Hogan, College of Pharmacy Nursing and Allied Health Sciences
• Santina Merchant Huff, Educational Advisory Center
• Marie Johns, Board of Trustees
• Victoria Kirby, Howard University Student Association
• Celia Maxwell, Office of Senior Vice President for Health Sciences
• George Middendorf III, Biology
• Teresa Redd, Center for Excellence in Training Learning and Assessment
• Dennis Rogers, Graduate School
A-1

• Kurt Schmoke, Law
• Jacqueline Smith, Social Work
• William Spriggs, Economics
• Vasant Telang, Office of the Provost
• Veronica Thomas, Human Development and Psychoeducational Studies
• Alvin Thornton, Office of the Provost
Mission and Goals Work Group
Chair, Horace Dawson, International Affairs
• Horace Dawson, Ralph Bunche International Affairs
• Raymond Archer, Alumni Relations
• Daphne Bernard, Pharmacy Practice
• Levena De La Rosa, Psychology
• Chontrese Doswell Hayes, Graduate School
• Karen House, Athletics
• Shirley Jackson, Occupational Therapy
• Charles McDonald, Board of Trustees
• Sylvia McDonald-Kaufman, Divinity
• Jerome Roberson, Law Library
• William Roberts, Howard University Student Association
• Harold Scott, Ralph Bunche Center for International Affairs
• Curston Wolf, Ralph Bunche Center for International Affairs
Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal Work Group
Chair, William Spriggs, Economics
• William Spriggs, Economics
• Soleman Abu-Bader, School of Social Work
• Marcus Decosta, Office of Financial Aid
• Latrice Foster, Dentistry
• Lorenzo Gregory, Engineering
• Lynne Kelly, Finance, International Business and Insurance
• Paul Musgrave, Administrative Services
• Karen Qawiyy, Office of the Secretary
• Mercedes Tibbits, Modern Languages and Literatures
• Anthony Woodburne, Howard University Student Association
Institutional Resources Work Group
Chair, Beatrice Adderley-Kelly, Pharmacy, Nursing, and Allied Health Sciences
• Beatrice Adderley-Kelly, Pharmacy, Nursing, and Allied Health Sciences
• Antwan Clinton, Howard University Bookstore, Auxiliary Enterprises
• Philip Gatti, Pharmacology
• Patrick Jadin, Engineering
A-2

• Victor McNaughton, Architecture and Engineering Services
• Takeisha Presson, Dentistry
• Kamran Tavakol, Pharmacy, Nursing, and Allied Health Sciences
• Arthuree Wright, Founders Library
Leadership and Governance Work Group
Chair, Kurt Schmoke, Law
• Kurt Schmoke, Law
• Carolyn Broome, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
• Alice Gresham Bullock, Law
• Porsche Gordon, Alumni Relations
• Alan Halloway, Howard University Bookstore
• Courtney Hudson, Arts and Sciences
• Odessa Jackson, Office of the General Counsel
• Charles McDonald, Board of Trustees
• Michael Newheart, Divinity
• Steve Pierre, Medicine
• Tashon Thomas, Howard University Student Association
Administration Work Group
Chair, Jacqueline Smith, Social Work
• Jacqueline Smith, Social Work
• Toi Carter, Office of the General Counsel
• Pauline Hazel, Administrative Services Committee
• Cynthia Henderson, Office of Total Compensation
• Lorraine Kittrell, Campus Police
• Thomas Lawson, Center for Academic Reinforcement
• Tamia McClain, Business
• Haile Mezghebe, Medicine
• Maxine Williams, Enrollment Services
• Darrion Woods, Howard University Student Association
Integrity Work Group
Chair, D. Kortright Davis, Divinity
• D. Kortright Davis, Divinity
• Taft Broome, Civil Engineering
• Shea Drake, Student Government Association
• Margaret Hicks, Business
• Linda Jones, Office of the Dean, Arts and Sciences
• Warner Lawson, Law
• Bettie Lowe, Campus Police
• Marlene Mahoney, Louis Stokes Health Sciences Library
A-3

• Kimberly Moffitt, Graduate School; Bernard Richardson, Chapel
Institutional Assessment Work Group
Chair, Lorraine Fleming, Engineering
• Lorraine Fleming, Engineering
• Lila Ammons, African American Studies
• S. Tyrone Barksdale, Office of the Provost
• Gerald Duncan, Howard University Student Association
• Jennifer James-Pryor, Office of University Communications
• Mohamed Mekkawi, University Libraries
• Mahmoud Nasr, Dentistry
• Jacob Ortiz, Community Association
• Lenny Patterson, WHUT Television
• Jarvis Seegars, Howard University Student Association
• Debyii Thomas, Journalism, Mass Communications and Media Studies
• Dawn Williams, Education
• Loretta Woodruff, Auxiliary Enterprises
Student Admissions and Retention Work Group
Chair, Carole Borggren, Budget and Finance
• Carole Borggren, Financial Analysis and Budget
• Jean Oyemade-Bailey, Education
• Iverson Bell, Engineering, Architecture, and Computer Sciences
• Alicia Criner, Undergraduate Student Assembly-Student Activities
• Linda Sanders-Hawkins, Office of Admissions
• Sterling Lloyd, Medicine
• LaWanda Peace, Office of Student-Services CEACS
• Paul Pressley, Graduate School
• Margo Smith, Business and Fiscal Affairs/Auxiliary Enterprises
Student Support and Services Work Group
Chair, Celia Maxwell, Medicine
• Celia Maxwell, Office of Senior Vice President for Health Sciences
• Linda Akoth, Student Life and Activities
• Darcel Bryant, Louis Stokes Health Sciences Library
• Tonya Guillory, Student Life and Activities
• Konya Hurt, Information Systems and Services
• Valarie Lawson, Center for Academic Reinforcement
• Lynnette Mundey, Student Health Center
• Shelly McDonald-Pinkett, Internal Medicine
A-4

Faculty Work Group
Chair, A. Wade Boykin, Psychology
• A. Wade Boykin, Psychology
• Sheik Hassan, Medicine
• Kimberly Jones, Engineering
• Marterio Moss, Social Work
• Danielle Parker-Mason, Howard University Student Association
• Kay T. Payne, Communication Sciences and Disorders
• Lloyd Sloan, Psychology
• Jeanne Toungara, History
• Charles Verharen, Philosophy
Educational Offerings Work Group
Chair, Rodney Green, Economics
• Rodney Green, Center for Urban Progress
• Angela Breden, Howard University Student Association
• Moses Garuba, Systems and Computer Science
• Victor Gordeuk, Medicine
• Thomas Heinbockel, Anatomy Graduate Studies
• Garnett Henley, Dentistry
• John Hughes, Television Station-WHUT
• Ivor Livingston, Sociology/Anthropology
• Paul Logan, Modern Languages
• Carol McKinnon, Enrollment Management: Records
• Anita Nahal, Graduate School
• Mishana Prophete, Pharmacy, Nursing, and Allied Health Sciences
• Dana Williams, English
• Kamilah Woodson, Education
General Education Work Group
Chair, Barbara Griffin, Arts and Sciences
• Barbara Griffin, Arts and Sciences
• Marjay D. Anderson, Biology
• Carolyn Byerly, Journalism, Mass Communications, and Media Studies
• Kitty L. Ellison, English
• Kimberly Freeman, Education
• Quanice Floyd, Howard University Student Association
• Stephanie Johnson, Laureate Scholar and Undergraduate Programs of Excellence
• Anna McCorvey, Engineering Architecture and Computer Sciences
• Anissa Ryan, Pharmacy, Nursing and Allied Health Sciences
• Zindzi Thompson, Howard University Student Association
A-5

• Edward Williams, Howard University Student Association
Related Educational Activities Work Group
Chair, Teresa Redd, Center for Excellence in Teaching, Learning, and Assessment
• Teresa Redd, Center for Excellence in Teaching, Learning, and Assessment
• Jessica Bailey, Howard University Student Association
• Roy Beasley, Continuing Education
• Annette Davis, Educational Advisory Center
• Erinn Garner, Athletics
• Maria Gomes, Social Work
• Rackham Goodlett, Center for Academic Reinforcement
• Wilma Hosten, International Student Services
• Joseph Lawrence, Information Systems Founders Library
• Joshua Polk, Howard University Student Association
• Aaron Stills, School of Education
• Frances Stubbs, University Advancement/CEACS Office of the Dean
• Clint Wilson II, Journalism
Assessment of Student Learning Work Group
Chair, Veronica Thomas, Education
• Veronica Thomas, Human Development and Psychoeducational Studies
• Spencer Chenier Alumni Relations/Advancement
• Constance Ellison, Human Development and Psychoeducational Studies
• Abimbola George, Student Council
• Janine Jackson, Human Development and Psychoeducational Studies
• Vernon Jones, Information Systems and Services
• Marguerite Neita, Clinician Laboratory Science/DAHS
• Nichole Newman, Education
• Sherry Scott, Pharmacy, Nursing, and Allied Health Sciences
• Kelley Williams, Howard University Student Association
Chair, Winston Anderson, Biology
• Winston Anderson, Biology
• Folohan Ayorinde, Chemistry
• Charles Betsey, Economics
• Daniel Carnegie, Medicine
• Georgia Dunston, Microbiology
• Gary Harris, Engineering
• Gregory Jenkins, Arts and Sciences
• Earl Kudlick, Dentistry
• George Littleton, Physiology
Research Work Group
A-6

• Kelly Mack, Office of Undergraduate Research
• James Mitchell, Chemical Engineering
• Danielle Perry, Student Activities
• Kenneth Scott, Pharmacy
• William Southerland, Medicine
A-7

Appendix B: Self-Study Timetable

Appendix B: Self-Study Timetable
Howard University
Middle States Accreditation Self-Study Timetable
Middle States Accreditation Site Team Visit
(March, 2009)
Final Version of Self-Study mailed to Site Visit Team and Commission
(January, 2009)
Preliminary Final Draft of Self-Study Report presented to President.
(December, 2008)
Revised Draft of Self-Study Report completed based upon comments from University
Community and from Executive and Steering Committees
(November, 2008)
Draft of Composite Self-Study Report completed and submitted to Executive and Steering
Committees; circulated on campus for discussion.
(September, 2008)
Submission of Work Group reports to Self-Study Office
(June, 2008)
Submission of Self-Study Design to Middle States
(May, 2008)
First Draft of Self-Study Design forwarded to Executive and Steering Committees; draft
submitted to President.
(April 2008)
Orientation and Organization of the Executive and Steering Committees and Work Groups;
Work Groups received charges.
(Summer, 2007)
Executive and Steering Committees and Work Group organized and began work; Self-Study
office opened.
(Summer, 2007)
Appointment of Self-Study Chair, Executive and Steering Committees
(Spring and Summer, 2007)
B-1

Appendix C: Preliminary Data
Available for Work Groups

Appendix C: Preliminary Data Available for Work Groups
• Annual Reports from Schools and Colleges 1999−2007
• FACT BOOK 2007
• Accreditation Reports 1999−2007
• Act of Incorporation of Howard University
• Periodic Review Report for the Commission on Higher Education Middle States
Association of Schools and Colleges: June 1, 2004
• Faculty Handbook
• Interim Bylaws of the Faculty Senate 1993 and Amendments to the Interim Bylaws 2000
• College of Pharmacy, Nursing and Allied Health Sciences By-Laws and Constitutions
• By-Laws of the Board of Trustees
• Student Handbook
• Faculty publication from library system 2007−2003
• HU Faculty by Rank, Gender, and Ethnicity, Fall 2007
• HU Graduate Summary 1990−2007 by gender
• FTIC Admission Data 2001−2002 to 2007−2008 (Average SAT and ACT, percent
admitted)
• HU Enrollment by Age Distribution―AY 1997−2006 (graphs: undergrad, grad,
professional)
• HU Enrollment by Classification―AY 2002−2006 (graphs: undergrad, grad,
professional)
• HU Enrollment by Ethnicity―AY 1997−2006 (graphs: undergrad, grad, professional,
overall)
• HU Enrollment by Gender―AY 1997−2006 (bar graphs: undergrad, grad, professional)
• HU FTIC Application Summary (by school/college 1999, 2006, 2007)
• HU Geographic Distribution
• HU Undergraduate Retention-Graduation Rates
• HU High School GPA Report―Fall 1998−Fall 2007
• HU SAT Scoring Data―Fall 1998−Fall 2007(average SAT and ACT)
• Howard University Organizational Chart
• Strategic Framework for Action II, April 2006
• FY 2007 Analytical Abstract for the United States Congress
• Periodic Review Report for the Commission on Higher Education Middle States
Association of Schools and Colleges, June 2004
• The Restructuring of Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Recommendations of the
Dean and Faculty, November 1, 1991
• Regional Sales Contract, April 21, 2007
• 1989 HU Self-Study Report
• Data Inventory List for Annual Reports
• Enrollment Management Strategic Overview: Academic Excellence Initiative; Office of
Admission; Registrar; Financial Aid; Scholarships and Student Employment and Student
Financial Services; and Laureate Scholars and Undergraduate Programs of Excellence;
March 6, 2008
C-1

• HU Student Affairs: Leadership for America and the Global Community, Student Affairs
Strategic Plan 2006−2010
• Leadership Academy Strategic Plan 2007
• Moorland-Spingarn Strategic Plan 2007
• Strategic Plans 2007 from Schools, Colleges and Departments
• BOARD OF TRUSTEES
− Howard University Board of Trustees Assessment of the Academic Excellence
Committee
• CHARTER SCHOOL AGREEMENT
−
July 18, 2005 signed Charter School Agreement between District of Columbia
−
Public Charter School Board and Howard University Public Charter Middle School of
Mathematics and Science’s (MS) 2
• FISCAL
− University budgets (HUH not included) for the past 10 years (1999−2008)
• Copies of President Swygert’s letter to the University community regarding the
budget (1997−2007)
• INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
• January 19, 2005―Report on the Infusion of Information Technology Supporting
Academic Instruction and Student Life at Howard
• INTERNAL AUDIT
• Audit Plan for 2008
• STRATEGIC LONG-TERM PLANNING AND BUDGETING
− July 1, 2005 memorandum from Provost Richard A. English to President H. Patrick
Swygert Essential Elements of schools, Colleges and Academic Support Units
− Essential Elements of Academic Support Units
− Strategic Long-Term Planning and Budgeting Concept Paper
• STRATEGIC PLANNING
− Strategic Framework for Action
− Strategic Framework for Action II
− October 4, 2007 memorandum from President H. Patrick Swygert to the Deans of the
Schools and Colleges–SFA III University Advisory Committee Organization
• UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES
− Strategic Plan for the Main Library Group (August 2007)
• U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SITE VISITATION TEAM
− November 15, 2006 briefing report on Teaching, Research, and Service in the
Context of the Mission of Howard University
• Information Breakdown
− Grade point average (Mean)
− Division (Communication, Social Science, Arts, and Humanities)
− Department (Art, English, Chemistry, Engineering, and Physical Science)
• Faculty Grants and Awards 1999−2000 and 2006−2007
− Extramural grants per department 1999−2000
− Faculty grants and awards 1999−2000
− Extramural grants per department 2006−2007
C-2

− Faculty grants and awards 2006−2007
• Annual Reports on Program Progress
− LAMP
− MARC
C-3